STUNS AUDIENCE!

Usually they make 30 seconds of content into 10 minutes of video.

However, since reality has a liberal bias they are usually correct factually even if they present it in a very annoying fashion.

... I've since unsubscribed when they decided that insulting my intelligence, and fluffing up the most NOTHING of NOTHING BURGERS into a 15 minute video that could have been covered in 2 minutes. They have become the very corporate-greedy-money-machine media "monster" that they always complained about.

Pity.

I don't really recall if it was them or some other associated group.

When I need a quick political dopamine kick, I'll sometimes click their videos but I've been getting diminishing returns. Raw Story similarly presents articles sensationally and with so little content as to be the news equivalent of potato chips.

Agree with you, QueerDuck.

reporting (mostly from others, although they do have a fairly high ranked former military person traveling to Ukraine and areas of the Middle East to do reporting as well. His name escapes me, but I think he may have reported on this military base story as well.

But, yes. The hyperbole, repetition, filler, often off-putting ads, and constant making of a 60 second video into 15 minutes or more has gotten ridiculous. I limit myself to the occasional view every few days and if they don't get to the point fairly quickly, I skim the transcript (Youtube at least gives that) and move on.

Do I think they are propaganda? Not really, but they do milk everything with more hyperbole than any of us should find acceptable. But it is still based on truth. So, that alone is better than RW media and MSM won't report on any of this at all until it blows up to their ever-embarrassment.

Middle East Challenges: As of March 2026, intensified retaliatory strikes in the Gulf have caused massive damage to U.S. bases, forcing troops to abandon some facilities and work remotely from safer, often commercial, locations.

Did not watch the video, not sure if this is what they are referring to.

13 US bases and the abandonment of them by US military, who are now working in hotels.

So the Meidas report US factual.

don’t hold yer breath. Another alternative is foreign media - BBC, for instance.

it often gets lost in the hyperbole.

Ukraine (and a short time in the ME) who touched on it but it was less than a fleshed out story--more of a "let's keep an eye on this." I will say I suspect there may have been some issues with high ranking leadership electing not to stay on base, but somehow I doubt 13 bases were vacated. NYT has the story, but I have not yet been able to read it yet as I can't archive it on a cell phone.

And you? What do you know/think?

Nyt paywalls their news so thank goodness mt reports it

-both on the standpoint of bias and reliability. Hyperbolic clickbait may be the game on YOUTUBE, but it does not help the reputation.

....Soldiers moving / moved into hotels, causing US military to have diminished capacity.

What's with the attack on Meidas Touch? (No, I am not a subscriber, but JHC the enemy is on the other side).

And, in this case -- as is often the case, from what I've seen -- their commentary is based on reputable reporting from other sources.

From The New York Times:

Yes, the information in their videos may be accurate, but it is filtered/altered with emotional trigger words to induce the viewer to keep watching and click on more of their videos generating more ad revenue.

As others have noted, they make a 10 second story into a 10 minute video.

Bottom line, they are a business, and their business is manipulating viewers emotions on political issues to get clicks and generate revenue. This is true of Occupy Democrats, the Lincoln Project, Glen Kirchner, and many others.

It will be interesting to see how the Never Trumper sites pivot in the near future, probably right after the midterms. Trump will never again be on the ballot, and the Never Trumpers will likely want to find a lane for conservatives to reclaim power. If Liz Cheney decides to run in 2028, I expect Meidas, Lincoln Project and others to back her.

That's all that matters here.

The rest of your diatribe is just you voicing you displeasure with the current nature of most social media political commentary outlets.

Yes, most are click-baity.

Yes, most cater towards a particular audience AKA they are biased.

But none of that means they are factually incorrect about something -- and in this particular case, they are commenting on reputable reporting.

Well I have some news for you. So is every main stream media outlet. Why don't you attack them? Everyone the world over is trying to hustle and make a living. But you are the one who is supposed to make the decision of who can and who can't have a social media channel that makes a living for them? Give me a break.

Our number one concern and objective should be defeating MAGA and restoring America back to a place of peace and prosperity for everyone. Top priorities, they should be front and center.

And some started out that way, but as the post-Trump era approaches, their model has shifted to focus on revenue generation, rather than activism.

that advocates for a blue wave in November.

But if you look around DU, you’ll see that many, if not most of my comments, are related to the upcoming Blue Tsunami, especially as a counter to defeatist Doomerism.

of the filth that has taken over USA government.

You put it perfect, well done!

And also you backed me up perfect.

But, if you read my posts upstream, I agree with the hyperbole and clickbait--problematic way to gain a foothold in the business, but given the move away from traditional media for news, I guess this is going to be the case for awhile.

Meidas Touch is not a never-Trumper outfit. Lincoln Project? Yes.

I do not believe Meidas is a clickbait site either. Clickbait infers they are intentionally deceptive, misleading, and/or sensationalist. Some of their headlines may indeed be a bit hyperbolic, and they may drag out a point longer than necessary, but clickbait? No.

It may or may not be deceptive, is almost certainly always subjective, usually emotion based.

The deception may not always be factual in nature, it may be a deceptive interpretation.

...they're very mainstream progressive, whatever hyperbole that comes with that.

Several people have pointed out that this statement is incorrect and that you appear to have conflated Meidas Touch with The Bulwark or The Lincoln project.

You have responded with your clickbait critique.

You have not corrected this initial false claim.

You being a person who demands punctilious accuracy would, I should think, hasten to correct this error.

Very much so.

Their rather bombastic video titles are because of algorithms for social media sites.

I stopped watching its videos some time ago. I refuse to click on videos that shout at me with inaccuracies.

It is no longer a reliable source of news.

I can't sand the titles and some of the presentation but they are reliably accurate. I mostly listen for their new roundups.

They are taking the Gavin Newsom approach - mirroring exaggerated headlines of MAGA.

As others have said, story is in NYT as well. All of our military bases around Iran have suffered damage and our troops are working remotely.

Also, Scott McFarlane joined MediasTouch (well respected CBS News reporter). I don’t think he’d go there if not reputable. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scott-macfarlane-meidastouch-cbs-news-1236544449/

We did Iwo Jima!

should have told you. TO SUBSCRIBE AND SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON WOOT AMIRITE

DU is still otherwise littered with this sort of shit though.

Ignore the titles of the videos......now those ARE very unreliable. But.....the content from Ben and his brothers is reliable and verifiable.

and on their Substack they spend most of their time trolling for subscribers.

However, Ron Filipowski is a good reporter for them.

If you can ignore their headlines, it's a good source.

I like it or not (I don’t) there are many people who will not read the New York Times or listen to Rachel Maddow or even network or cable news They will, however, look at videos with this kind of click bait title. Since Meidas Touch are anti-Trump/pro-democracy and for the most part they’re providing real true information they are a benefit to the media environment.

I would recommend them to people who don’t necessarily read their news.

Legal AF is accurate and detailed without being overly hyperbolic. Michael Popok is a bit of a know-it-all but he mostly does! He and his associates are lawyers so of course they're long-winded! Still, very good analysis-focused shows.

Under Color of Law with Shan Wu is excellent and concise.

Some months it's 3x.

We need that. Time for us to stop saying "ick" and support those on our side that appeal to very large audiences.

And their stories are well sourced and accurate. My feeling is, "Whatever you're doing is working. Carry on."

I appreciate them.

But it is getting bombastic and Ben is getting too emotional but many streaming critics are and rightfully so. I appreciate they are bringing more voices to their broadcast so the variety is nice albeit similar messaging. Much better than TYT

an entertainment source, not a news source.

The news itself is usually secondhand, but the sources tend to not be fictive.

The presentation is hyperbolic. I think the emotional and sensationalist presentations indirectly misinform in a number of ways. For instance, you'd walk away from 5-10 of those stories thinking the right wing is going to collapse by next payday.

I'll admit that I prefer my news handed to me as concisely as possible, and if I'm going to watch something for 15 minutes I'd prefer to have some in-depth coverage and expert opinion. I'm old school like that, and loitering news-readers bug me as much as much as those AI-written social media posts with the choppy paragraphs full of blustery mind-reading.

That having been said, I think Meidas will improve over time. Charlie Angus is their figurehead in Canada, and he's a serious guy, serious about punk and serious about politics. I think Scott McFarlane joining in the last few days can potentially take it to that point where they're putting out more original and detailed reporting.

But when you listen to the actual video you will realize they used clickbait.

I have no problem with it becsuse the other side does it although they actually lie a lot if times.

Many people don't watch the actual video..But they will see the title and image.

...Popok and Litman are as mindnumbingly boring as they are informative, and many of the others aren't really news sources in that you can rely on every word spoken in advocacy to be accurate, like most talk on the internet, but they bring good info with their efforts.

But, it's SOLID Democratic, progressive advocacy. So they exaggerate a bit and are strident in their descriptions of republicans and Trump. So what? No one should care. They are progressive advocacy and I think they can be effective with what they do. Just not necessarily what I'm looking for all the time.

But, ALLISON GILL (Mueller She Wrote). owner of MSW Media and hosting several podcasts, hosts 'The Daily Beans' on Meidas which I think is an essential for folks who like informative, up to date discussion of breaking news and other political stuff. A-1 podcast.

The vid you posted has solid info from good sources, presented in a way that informs folks who may not be as concerned as some of us are and need a bit of a nudge.

Oh, and as a poster reminded, you can also find Katie Phang's excellent podcast there.

A lot of videos have clickbait titles and say like and subscribe but I watch Katie Phang videos who I believe used to work for the mainstream press. A lot of it is informative and reliable but I don't watch them too often nor am I subscribed but they aren't bad.

I used to watch everything they put up. Then they started putting up videos every twenty minutes. I’d scan to see who was doing most of the talking, and either watch or not based on that. Then sometime last year I stopped clicking on videos from people and organizations who weren’t talking about a couple of very important issues, and they were one of those organizations. I blocked the ones who were obviously getting paid to not talk about it. The rest I just scroll right past.

TLDR: They’re hyperbolic and possibly a little sketchy.

I will reveal some of the channels that I do watch and I gain valuable information from them:


1. I watch Democracy Docket by Marc Elias.

BTC is predicted a "blue wave" for Texas based on the primary. I do not find that accurate. If primaries are predictors of general, then Obama would have won Texas at 65% in 2008.

67.84% of votes cast in the 2008 primary were for Democratic ballots.

Democrats: 2,874,986
Republicans: 1,362,322